The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1887-11-10
DOOMED.

OUlV6O 6Catc0 Cup1em0 OOuIC upon t00
petition for writ Of error In the case
Of the Chicago Anarchists wGs announced
yesterday afternoon BY Chief Justice
Waite in . long and carefully prepared
opinion which occupied thirty five minutes
In the reading.
This destroys their last chance for
judicial interference with the execution OF
the sentence. and their only hope now for
prolongation Of life seems to de-
pend upon the executive clemency Of
the Governor Of Illinois The courtroom
was crowded when the Justices took their
appeared unusually solemn and serious,
and hush fell over the room, when Chief
Justice Waite, without . moments delay,
OF the court In the matter Of an application
by Spies and others for q writ Of error
to the Supreme Court Of the State
Of ulinoi& Almost the first SON.
tence Indicated that tho Anarchiets' appeal
to the court Of dernier resort was Intellectual
and that the writ would be denied Chief
Justice Waite, who, 1t v understood, pre-
pared the decision. proceeded slowly and
ca.mly to read the decision, while the audi
encc paid the closest attention to each
sentence.
Following are the main points In the de-
cision:
When, as in this case, application Is made to
as on the suggestion OF one OF our number to
whom similar application has been previous
~ addressed for the allowance Of writ
Of error, IL Is our duty TO ascertain, not
only whether any quest on renewable
here was made and decided In the proper
court below, but whether II - Of
49, S~~sr u
the judgment here for re-examination. In
our opinion the writ ought not to be
allowed by the court II it appears from
the face OF the record that the decision Of the
Federal question which Is complained Of was
% plainly right as not TO reQu re argument, and
esTecially II 1 is In accordance with our
own well-consldered judgments In similar
cases. That Is in effect what was done
IN Twifchell vs.. The Commonwealth, z Wall.
S.3, when the writ was refused because the
questions presented by the record were mo
longer subje Is OF scasssion" although. II
they had been In the opin on Of the court
''open,' It would have been allowed.
In the present case we have had the benefit
OF argument in support OF the application, and,
while counsel have not deemed IL their
duty to go fully into the merits Of
the questions involved. they have
shown us distinctly what the decisions
the questions arose. In this way We are
able to determine, as court in session.
whether the errors alleged are such as to
justify us IN bringing the case here for
review. We proceed, then. to consider what
the questions are IN which, II 1t exists at all,
our jurisdiction depends. The particular pro
visions OF the constitution Of the United States
on which consul rely are fou d in Articles ~,
v. and XIV OF the amendments.
Uv tho - Axnn nuf
were not intended to limit the powers Of the
State governments In respect to their OWE
citizens, but to operate on the National govern
ment alone, was decided more than hal
century ago. and that decision has beer
sscadily adhered TO since.
It was contended, however, In argumen,
that though originally the frst ten amend
ments were adopted as limitations or
Federal power, yet in so far as they secure
and recognize fundamental rights, com
mon law rights OF the man, they make then
privileges and immunlties OF the man % cit
ixen OF the United States, and can not now b.
ai,ridged by % State under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
rhe objections are in brlef n, That statute
Of the State as construed by the court de-
prived the petitioners Of q trial by an impair
tial jury; and l2), That Spies was com
polied to give evidence against himself. Be
the United States has the effect which 1:
claimed. Il is proper to inquire whether thu
Federal questions relied on In fact
arise on the face OF this record. One
statute to which objection 10 mado mEal
approved March II, 1874, WAnt
has been in force since July I, Of that year
The complaint is that the trial cou {, acting
under this statute, and In accordance with Its re
quirements, compelled the petitioners, agains
Hhotp ~i IN ouh IN n rfo hS 1Npv
that was not impartial, and thus deprivet
them OF one OF the fundamental rights which
they had as citizens OF the United States un
der tho National constitution; and that II tn,
sentence Of the court is carried into execution
they with be deprived OF their lives " withou
due process Of law
In Hopt W. Utah. 10 United States 43a. I
was decided by this court that, where Q chsl
lengo by defendant in criminal action to
and the juror 10 thereupon peremptorily chal
lenged by the defendant, and oxcuset
and an impartial and competent juror Is oh
tanned in his place, no injury II done the de
fcndant II. until the jury 10 completed, he ha
other peremptory challenges which he can use
OF the corr, ciness Of this rul ng we entertain
no doubt. It Is held that both Denker and San
ford had been properly impanneled. and that tn
fact that the defense had exhausted their per
emptory challenges when Juror Sanford wa
presented did not come within tho rule lait
down in . Territorial case. decided by the 6u
preme Court Of the United States. and that
therefore. Sanford was competent Juror.
The decision then says that the jury law 0
Illinois Il similar to the statutes OF New York
Michigan and Nebraska, tho constitutionalit
OF which has been sustained in numerous court
OF record. and says: We agree entirely wit
the Supreme Court of Illinois In the opin
tan hat cta ID
strued by the trial court Is not repue
nant to section Ut article 2 OF the cor
stitution OF that State. which guarantee
TO the accused party in every crimna
prescott on . speedy trial by IN impal
tal Jury OF the county or district in whic
the oflense ID alleged 70 have been committed
As this substantially the provision OF th
constitution Of the United States ON whic
| the petitioners now rely, 1t follows that even
kther pos tion as to the operation and edec
| OF that constitution 10 correct the statute Il
not olen to the objection which is made agains
| IT.
We come now to consider the objection tina
| the defendant Spies was compelled by the coul
| 70 be witness against himself. He volur
tarily offered himself . witness in his ow
behalf. and by so doing he became bound I
| submit himself to proper cross-examtni
| ton. The COMP la'nt is that he was r.
| gu red on cross-examination to stat
| whether he had received certai
| letter which was showr, purporting I
have been written by Johann Most and at
| dressed to him, and upon his saying that
| had, tho Court allowed tho letter to be rca
| In evidence against him. This, it is elaine
was not proper discrimination. It is nc
| contended that the subject to which the rrOs
| examination related was not pertinent to tn
| issue to be tried. and whether crossexamtn,
| tion must be confined to matters pertinent
| the testimony In chief. or may be to the matte
| in issue ID certainly question OF State law
| the courts OF the State and not Of Federal Law
| Something has been said in argumcr
| about an alleged unreasonable search an
| seizure Of tho papers and property Of som
/ OF the defendants, and their use
| evidence on the trial OF the cas-
| Special reference is made In tn
connection Of the letter Of Most, about whic
| Spies was cross-examined, but we have NJ
been referred TO any part OF the record
| which it appears that objection was made
| the trial-court to the use OF the ev
| dence on that account. Such q
| objection as this. which is not su
| gestcd by the nature OF the onere
| evidence, but depends upon the proof OF Q
| outside fact should have been made on II